Witcher 3 is arguarbly the best game ever released and one for the history books. If that doesn't interest you, maybe you should try something simpler, like Pacman or something? You're not supposed to like a game just because it's a masterpiece, people have different things that interest them.
Played it a year ago, after the first 5 hours lost interest wasn't getting into it.
Just started again a couple of weeks ago, 30 hours in and really enjoying it.
| Mummelmann said: Honestly though, I really do understand people having problems liking TW3, it's not really like most other WRPG's, which is a good thing for me, but not for everyone. I also have complaints about it, but they're mostly overshadowed by how amazing I think the overall package is. |
It really isn't - well, more precisely, it's not like TES, since that's about what most people who don't play open-world WRPGs and who jumped into TW3 are familiar with.
You know my pet peeves with it from back when it launched, and since I'm lazy to go into it again, I'll just leave at "missed opportunity" - it did some things extremely good, but in others was way, way behind Gothics which were its main influence.
| AngryLittleAlchemist said: In fact there's a series that gets a lot of acclaim for it's world building based on enemy placement, called Gothic. Personally I've never played it, so maybe vivister will come in here and show me my place or something, but a big part of it's appeal is that if you go down the wrong path and don't come equipped your fucked. It makes it feel like an actual world. But hell, that's such an extreme example, The Witcher 3 isn't even nearly that bad, or hard. |
Gothics (especially 1 and 2) have much better world building than Witcher - and yes, they are brutally hard games, yet very smart in their design - but ultimately, Gothics are quite niche. Us, fans of it, were hoping that TW3 will live up to its Gothic influences - and for some it did (like Mummelmann). For me it was missed opportunity, though I still enjoyed it.
Now Gothics are long, long way from perfect games - I consider them best open-world action WRPGs (along with Morrowind), yet I rate them around 8-8.5 - Piranha Bytes was always pretty small dev, they topped at 30 developers with limited funding, so there was quite a bit to improve. And that is a sad truth - open-world action WRPGs, as a niche genre, peaked quite early, and given their initially limited audience, over time became so diluted to accommodate more mainstream audience that they can hardly be called RPGs anymore (like in case of Fallout 4, which is FPS-RPG hybrid).
Perhaps, given that we're in CRPG renaissance, there will be bold devs out there to try and make something that is more akin to great boom of genre on PCs in early 2000s...but I'm not too optimistic, given where the industry is heading.
Last edited by HoloDust - on 28 January 2018
And I would have to agree 100% as those were exactly my impressions.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
Your opinion is wrong but ok.
Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984
Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261
I agree with the OP to a large extent. I enjoyed it, but boy is it flawed. The combat is unresponsive. You are forced to continue fights that you aren't leveled up enough for, whilst in Breath of the Wild, you can just run away. When I get back into it I'll have to start from scratch to make sure I'm powerful enough to beat the botchling, which is very annoying.
The story seems to be well done, the graphics are generic but very high fidelity. It doesn't have a unique art style, hence it won't age well.
The menu system is atrocious, it's so needlessly complicated. Once again BOTW does it correctly. It's very glitchy as well. But I was enjoying it and I plan to get back into it after I'm done with BOTW.
Sales prediction, PS4: 122 Million, Xbox one: 50 million, Switch: 105 million.
Witcher 3 has terrible combat but it does a lot of things good. The open world and music are the most noteworthy but I think the sidequests are barely any better than in most open world games because they have little variety gameplay wise.
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
It honestly just sounds like you don't understand the combat, and I mean that with sincerity, because I absolutely hate those kind of "u just suck get good scrub" replies. I mean, the levels of the enemies do matter but something 3-6 or so levels above you isn't going to be that much of a challenge(I'm trying really hard to remember like, how many levels above you a monster had to be in order for it to be really difficult to fight). I have a bad condition of constantly replaying the opening of games a lot. I also really suck at games. So I'm not trying to say this from an elitist perspective, but it really isn't that difficult. You might die once or twice but the Witcher isn't about easy combat necessarily. You shouldn't get discouraged from dying once because in most cases it just means you should have pressed the dodge button or had a different spell equipped. In one of the earliest times I restarted the Witcher, I decided to do every sidequest and mission available at the beginning of the game before activating world traversal. The starting area was really really easy, even though most of it I hadn't explored before. You can even tell what quests CD Projekt Red wanted to naturally integrate into the player's journey, like the Swamp quest which literally is right off the road and just involves you spending two minutes going into a Swamp. " I'll admit it may be possible I just happened to wander into the worst possible areas which wrongfully gave the impression that was the whole game, but it's bad game design regardless if that's even possible. " This happened to a pretty well-known reviewer while playing Breath of the Wild. He went to an area behind the starting plateau I believe, and he died numerous times. He actually learned the enemies attack patterns, but because of weapon degradation he couldn't kill off the enemy without losing all his weapons. This makes it even worse than your Witcher example. So is Breath of the Wild a badly designed game? I don't even think this makes much sense in the context of an open world game. An open world game should have depth in it. It's a living, breathing world that you can traverse. The game didn't make you go there, you did. You can just keep riding away if you don't want to fight, and the wraith literally disappears for a few seconds after an engagement begins so it's easy to get away. If all of the open world was tailor made to make every engagement exactly your level or gratifying, it wouldn't feel like an open world. Now if every corner was filled with enemies 70 levels higher than you, that might be an issue *cough cough Xenoblade 2 cough cough* but that's just not true. In fact there's a series that gets a lot of acclaim for it's world building based on enemy placement, called Gothic. Personally I've never played it, so maybe vivister will come in here and show me my place or something, but a big part of it's appeal is that if you go down the wrong path and don't come equipped your fucked. It makes it feel like an actual world. But hell, that's such an extreme example, The Witcher 3 isn't even nearly that bad, or hard. I know that's a pretty long winded reply but i'm not like a Witcher apologist or anything. Honestly I never got around to finishing the game, I'd always get to a certain point and be turned off. I just wanted to add my own two cents in, you don't have to agree. |
You don't have to agree with me either. We could have had completely different experiences in the game. And I may suck at it horribly and not understand how it's really played.
But, I will say, in Breath of the Wild, when I push a button, it does that. In Witcher 3, it feels like it never does what I'm pressing. Like there's a delay to everything. And, in BotW, your aim and tactics are a huge part of it. You can kill any enemy in the game with enough strategy, including ones that don't use your weapons at all (like with the runes). In Witcher 3, there didn't seem to be anything I could do to fight enemies much higher leveled other than grind and level up. And that's not fun. I don't want to do that.
I wasn't a fan of Witcher 3 from the outset. I mean, I left that pub at the start of the game and Roach somehow got stuck in the fence outside, and it was a real pain getting him back out.
this thread earns you 1 jackie chan meme...
Congrats.
I've never been able to get into the Witcher 3, but that's mainly as I don't much care for the characters. I'd personally wish to play as some random nobody alongside Geralt and such that I get to design for myself, but perhaps other Western RPG's have spoiled me in that regard.
Despite that issue, it was clear to me that the game was indeed fantastic... I'll probably return to it one day and think myself a fool for giving up on it.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
